Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
I've just had a thought! I mean, the teaching is so poor these days, university students can't spell, etc., that now popular works are being put into comic or graphic-novel form. Grrrrr. This is very sad.
D'you reckon that the Times and FT etc are going to be written in text-script for future generations?
Why is Poirot being in a graphic novel/comic so bad?
In recent years a number of highly regarded writers have initially appeared from that medium and then gone on to find great success. I'm thinking of people like Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Frank Miller, etc.
When I saw the item first thing that morning they only had the examples to show, the article came later. (I believe the link to the images was in the top right hand corner of the page.)
The drawings were great, but as one speech bubble had the character saying- excuse the blah's- blah blah blah 'old chap!'
Think the teenagers of today will think it's funny, not serious.
Hey Richard, I hope Agatha Christie goes on to find "great success" then!!
I've got no problem with novels in graphic form - some of them look fun. I'm just beginning to wonder if the FT and suchlike will ever go that way. Tho I realise that papers have always contained images, I'm finding it hard to get my head round the speech-bubbles. E.g. some slanging match at PM's Question Time... hee hee :O) It could work!
Adapting works of literature in comic books/graphic novels has been around for decades. Classics illustrated were doing this back in the 50s and very successfully. I don't see why it's such a big news story.
As long as they're faithful to the written works, fair enough.
I agree with Richard - I'm sure the writer would be glad of the exposure and also it makes the work accessible to those who might not plough through the original versions.
Another interesting side to this. I was reading the Paul Cornell's blog the other week. He is noted for writing for the Dr Who series as well as a number of novels. He's just signed to write a comic for Marvel comics (Spiderman, Hulk, Fantastic Four) and is delighted with the exposure it will give him.
I've cut and pasted this brief extract, which gives warning of how things may be going.
'HarperCollins, which holds the rights to all 83 Christie novels, is publishing eight of them as graphic novels this year. Several, including Death on the Nile and Murder on the Orient Express, star Poirot. Eight more will follow in 2008. Further Christie comics and graphic novel adaptations of other classics are planned and could include the works of C.S. Lewis and Alistair MacLean.
Rival publishers are monitoring the progress of the books closely. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Faber & Faber and Bloomsbury are all preparing to make inroads into the graphic novel market. '
Do you see this as a bad thing? I see no difference between this and film adaptations. Of course it depends on the quality of the adaptation but if it's done well then I think that's fine.
As I said earlier, classic literature has been adapted into graphic novel form for decades. It's not a new thing.
Isn't it symptomatic of the fall in attention span generally, particularly in children? The internet must have a lot to do with it along with the literacy hour which has reduced the expectation to read whole books.
I don't agree with what seems to be a general downer from people towards comics. When I was young I read a lot of comics in addition to books. If I read an adaptation of a book that I enjoyed it made me want to go out and read the book and I did this a lot.
It was just the same as if i'd seen a good film adaptation and then decided to read the book.
I know a number of people who work in comics and there is no attempt to dumb down in what they do. Quite the opposite in fact.
I don't disagree with it in theory, as I can see the advantages in encouraging youngsters to take an interest and then perhaps read the books properly.
But I don't see that happening.
Everything is being 'dumbed down', or so it seems to me. Just look at the standard of what is presented nowdays on the box.
Christie, Austen, Dickens and the Brontes, and Mrs Gaskill are the highlights of decent tv now.
I'd prefer Christie and co were not made into comic strips, but I'm realistic enough to accept (that regrettably) that's the way it's going.
Can you believe, they still have Dennis the Menace, The Numb Skulls and Billy Whizz in the Beano? As well as Bash St. Kids? It seems so old-fashioned to us now but the children seem to love it.
My son has the Beano delivered every week and loves it. I am not sure I fancy Agatha Christie in graphic novel format. There are graphic novels I love, such as Gaiman's Sandman and Charles Burns Black Hole. But I just don't think Poirot is the right genre for this.
Dennis the Menace is a cartoon on tv, and there is merchandise too.
And how many adults buy it for their kids, but those kids don't read it?
Perhaps I'm being cynical.
Comments
This is the accompanying article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6949913.stm
They want to bring Agatha Cristie to a younger audience.
Hmmmmm...
D'you reckon that the Times and FT etc are going to be written in text-script for future generations?
In recent years a number of highly regarded writers have initially appeared from that medium and then gone on to find great success. I'm thinking of people like Neil Gaiman, Alan Moore, Frank Miller, etc.
They're not just about superheroes and the Beano.
Just my tuppence worth.
Richard
The drawings were great, but as one speech bubble had the character saying- excuse the blah's- blah blah blah 'old chap!'
Think the teenagers of today will think it's funny, not serious.
I've got no problem with novels in graphic form - some of them look fun. I'm just beginning to wonder if the FT and suchlike will ever go that way. Tho I realise that papers have always contained images, I'm finding it hard to get my head round the speech-bubbles. E.g. some slanging match at PM's Question Time... hee hee :O) It could work!
Adapting works of literature in comic books/graphic novels has been around for decades. Classics illustrated were doing this back in the 50s and very successfully. I don't see why it's such a big news story.
As long as they're faithful to the written works, fair enough.
Richard
I read quite a few of her novels a while back. I preferred Poirot to Mrs Marple. Enjoyed Suchet's perfomances on TV as well.
Richard
Another interesting side to this. I was reading the Paul Cornell's blog the other week. He is noted for writing for the Dr Who series as well as a number of novels. He's just signed to write a comic for Marvel comics (Spiderman, Hulk, Fantastic Four) and is delighted with the exposure it will give him.
It seems it's all good publicity.
Richard
I've cut and pasted this brief extract, which gives warning of how things may be going.
'HarperCollins, which holds the rights to all 83 Christie novels, is publishing eight of them as graphic novels this year. Several, including Death on the Nile and Murder on the Orient Express, star Poirot. Eight more will follow in 2008. Further Christie comics and graphic novel adaptations of other classics are planned and could include the works of C.S. Lewis and Alistair MacLean.
Rival publishers are monitoring the progress of the books closely. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Faber & Faber and Bloomsbury are all preparing to make inroads into the graphic novel market. '
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2317510.ece
Do you see this as a bad thing? I see no difference between this and film adaptations. Of course it depends on the quality of the adaptation but if it's done well then I think that's fine.
As I said earlier, classic literature has been adapted into graphic novel form for decades. It's not a new thing.
Richard
It was just the same as if i'd seen a good film adaptation and then decided to read the book.
I know a number of people who work in comics and there is no attempt to dumb down in what they do. Quite the opposite in fact.
Richard
But I don't see that happening.
Everything is being 'dumbed down', or so it seems to me. Just look at the standard of what is presented nowdays on the box.
Christie, Austen, Dickens and the Brontes, and Mrs Gaskill are the highlights of decent tv now.
I'd prefer Christie and co were not made into comic strips, but I'm realistic enough to accept (that regrettably) that's the way it's going.
And how many adults buy it for their kids, but those kids don't read it?
Perhaps I'm being cynical.